Comments

And he doesn’t need to. Firstly, CAGW is a term largely used by denialists to denote a strawman. Secondly, depending on what you understand “incontrovertibly” to mean that is likely to denote an inappropriate standard. Thirdly, the AGW part already is very strongly backed by evidence.

Chek actually said that “… the denial industry will be stuck for answers…”.

Me, I think on that last point he’s being over-optimistic. Most denialists double down when presented with evidence that rebuts their denial – and that goes double and triple for those paid to put out superficial memes to gull the rubes.

Meatball again proves he can’t debate his way out of a soaking wet paper bag. Of course I’ve destroyed his arguments. The sheer fact that he cannot answer my points raised in the last few posts is proof positive of that.

So all meatball has left is to parrot smears made by Batty some months ago. That’s all he has left. And of course I have witnessed climate change first hand: in the Netherlands there are many species colonizing the country from the south, as well as dramatic seasonal shifts in life cycles of many others that I have noticed over even only 15 years that I have lived here.

Again, another demolition of meatball. Expect another humorless smear in response.

I don’t know how you’ve managed to get on the wrong side of him cRR, but brad’s got you pegged as some sort of homicidal maniac/idiot – and all because you can see the positives in a few thousand people being killed in weather disasters.

“… all because you can see the positives in a few thousand people being killed in weather disasters.” – example of the agenda projection I mean. For I have studiously avoided any mention of body count, until, in some comment, I differentiated between disasters happening to the rich arrogants causing merely property damage, and e.g. Haiyan.

I like the ‘white people’ runner added to this (never mind the 16.000 or so Aborigine and Torres people in Cairns).
But I wonder whether that ‘gloating’ fiction wouldn’t be unadulterated projection. Which is the point of the exercise: having the gloaters come up into the sunshine.

One of the more amusing things over at the Rabett Run is that his hammer to beat on Peter Gleik with is an ‘analysis’ of “a babyish forgery” provided by Megan “Not a Denier” McArdle’s piece in The Atlantic.

“Megan McArdle is just as opposed to everything HI (Heartless Inst) stands for as you”, The Keyster assures us.
“McArdle found 8 separate, substantive reasons not to trust the “Strategy Document”, yet you people still appear to be in denial of its obvious fraudulence. Years later. You still fantasise that HI actually produced it”.

What The Keyster doesn’t mention is that Ms. McArdle is actually Mrs.Peter Suderman, and her husband works for one of Heartless’ largest named donors, William Dunn.

Having failed to get any traction as well as being exposed as completely out of his depth, Clueless Keyster is now imploding (or should that be expiring) in bold text and all caps. Links and the spectacle itself all in the link at beginning of this post.

I still think Brad’s apotheosis might be his claim that it’s okay to run a sock and comment in a forum from which you have been banned because you changed your screen name. A nom de guerre, you see, is not a sockpuppet, especially if it’s a really clever one (in its creator’s opinion).

Shorter Brad: it’s okay for me to do what the fuck I like because compared to me, you are all scurrying morons and rules are for little people.

#15 chek, looks good, yes, also risky. The trap is deadly as those who accuse me of ‘gloating’ re my small suggestion are the ones that effectively gloat at the fucking end of world as we know it within a mere couple of generations starting with that of our parents.
The question is: who will realize this, and who won’t.

chek, the Atlantic is a centre-right-of-centre magazine, correct? Correct me if I’m wrong as my impression comes from a couple of train station copies bought and read almost 4 years back in NY.

McArdle is no pushover. She can think for herself, and she supports ‘the cause’. (Heh, guess whose ‘side’ that puts her on).

And, she’s been honest about her indirect links with the Koch Foundation in her articles, since Koch was being fingered at the time.

So the suddenly insightful article where she laid into Glieck when the others were still looking around …the possibility that could have been due to from insider information, makes you feel you”ve been had, doesn’t it? That’s how I feel.

McArdle says she’s always been interested in fake documents etc and owing to this, people might have brought this to her attention. But, if true, she could have gotten the crucial lead that the strategy memo was a fake document from Suderman. Would take the shine off her investigative work.

In any case, Mosher, if we still believe that story, guessed the whole thing cold.

The bottom line is why fake something already in the public domain? There’s no reason to fake other than to introduce an even more dastardly lie. But there were no lies, everything was already in the public domain.

The whipped up fuss about fakery only served as a distraction, as it was intended to do.

Yes, but you haven’t been seen here for a long time. Hence my surprise.

Re Gleick, it was, and remains, blah, blah, blah. The key point is that yes, there is a denial industry, yes it is sowing misinformation, and yes, those funding it are in some cases (Anonymous Donor anyone? Donors Trust? GWPF?) striving to keep their identities secret.

If someone doesn’t tell you what they do with their money, that doesn’t mean they are being furtive. Heartland used to have their donor names in the open. It was a bad idea given the targeted Holocaust denier hunting by the likes of Greenpeace. Which fundamentally boils down to the stupid incomprehension of the banner dropping proto-violent teen mentality that goes with it.

A few years ago, I dug into a California based electric car company whose investors were a nest of Goldman Sachs boys, including Hank Paulson and Mr Tom Steyer of Farallon Capital. Steyer is dining the president today at his ranch (shameful in a democracy) and funding McAuliffe’s elections, thus potentially benefitting Michael Mann indirectly.

I didn’t catch any outrage from Thinkprogress et al.

We are talking about Western democracies. Everything’s awash in money. The money is on both sides. Let’s work toward putting some in our own pockets (the little guys) and keeping it there. Instead of hyperventilating like conspiracist ideators. Money always cancels, it is the ideas that matter.

So what you’re saying is that some of the rich will jump in the ‘correct’ direction in preparation for the world of tomorrow, and others will jump in the wrong direction in an effort to shore up the unsustainable.

Well my!
Aren’t we lucky to have you pointing out those basics for us.

Of course, this phoney ‘balance’ inanity (and classic projection) fits hand-in-glove with the risible claim of the dastardy warmist scientists ‘all being in it for the grant money’ – pause to note the absence of conspiracist ideation here – and this is what has distorted the world’s perception, as opposed to, say, the Kochs and Exxon, being merely among the wealthiest entities to have ever existed…

Not the last time you encounter Marx-oid kooks hanging out in the periphery, like the non-coding regions that become junk DNA owing to lack of pressure on survival fitness.

Harping about Heartland betrays the impotence of ‘the cause’, doesn’t it? Here we are, interested people of climate, potentially having been taken for a ride l’affaire Gleick’s Fakegate, and you are worrying about fitting your fellow commenters into some comforting historic framework and becoming angry at people for being wealthy.

Money promoting false ideas is simply not cancelled by well financed promotion of rebuttals to those ideas, as any good propagandist from now back as far as living memory goes could tell you – along with a whole bunch of scientists who have researched those kinds of questions.

One might be tempted to speculate as to why you feel the need to advance such an unrealistic claim, and whether your position is tenable without relying upon it.

If shrubbery or anyone else for that matter actually thinks that there isn’t a huge, well funded and well organized anti-environmental lobby that includes, climate change denial, then methinks they are living in a cave on an isolated island. Put t another way: corporations spend billions of dollars in the US alone in lobbying members of Congress, and that much more in influencing elections. Its easy to argue that the US has long ceased to be a healthy functioning democracy on the basis of this. Essentially, as Sheldon Wolin has written in his recent works, the US has undergone a coup-det-tat in slow motion, into a fully fledged corporate state (what he refers to as “Inverted Totalitarianism”. Chris Hedges alludes to this in many of his writings. The thrust of their arguments is that, by co-opting power, their aim is to ensure profit maximization.

The fossil fuel lobby of course is at the heart of this. They see any measures aimed at reducing our dependence on the se of fossil fuels as a threat to the way they do business, and to the bottom line. So of course they will do everything within their power to ensure that the status quo is retained. Given their bottomless sacks of money, they invest in all kinds of third parties (the classic strategy coined by Edward Bernays and Walter Lippmann a century ago) which include public relations firms, think tanks, astroturf and front groups etc. in order to generate doubt as to the reality of climate change and other environmental threats. There’s nothing really conspiratorial about it; it just IS.

That anyone with half a brain would deny the reality of the well funded denial lobby is quite a feat. It takes ignorance of the highest order.

One last point. Shub’s arguments are utterly vacuous. This has nothing to do with bitterness or sour grapes over some people’s immense wealth. It has everything to do with corporations profiting massively on the planet’s ecological destruction, in full knowledge of the implications. Therein lies the rub.

No, you fucking moron, what makes us angry is that vested interests are subverting democracy and hiding their identities while doing it. Just because you are too insane and too stupid to parse reality does not give you any right to critique those of of who understand what is going on.

Now fuck off. The stench of madness and lies coming off you would make a hyena flinch.

What the fuck has that to do with the subversion of the democratic process by stealth? K-12 programs to distort the minds of children. Lying to congress to distort the minds of policy makers. That sort of thing.

Ha! When accused of “conspiracy ideation”, who would then try and defend themself by rattling off a whole load of other conspiracy theories.

Why is it you guys are incapable of actually dealing with the real issues? You use “conspiracy theories” like slime mold “signaling”, a method of establishing group behaviour without actually requiring any intellect effort whatsoever:
:http://www.lumennatura.com/2012/07/14/slime-mold-and-signaling-molecules/
“When secreted cAMP signal molecules bind to cAMP-receptors on the cell membranes of the other slime mold amoebas, it signals them to activate a swarming behavior wherein the amoebas congregate and form a large multicellular “slug.” The slug community is the reproductive stage of slime mold.”

Are you attempting to reproduce BBD? or just drawing the community together to form a giant conspiracy ideation “slug”?

Incidentally, the sociopathic conspiracy theorist loon Brad Keyes did exactly this on his defamatory blog. Since you have never demonstrated any capacity for original thinking (or indeed mentation of any kind) I assume you have simply copied your latest error from Keyes. The dangers of parroting!

“Money promoting false ideas is simply not cancelled by well financed promotion of rebuttals to those ideas, as any good propagandist from now back as far as living memory goes could tell you – along with a whole bunch of scientists who have researched those kinds of questions.”

Good argument, I guess.

If we take this, it’s not the money but the deviousness of the propaganda communication devices that matter, isn’t it? As in, you can spend a bucketload of money but if evil mastermind Frank Luntz’s got ya there is no winning.

BBD, Looks like a few screws have come loose, as usual. Compare your unhinged rage that Donor Trust is not telling you who their donors are, and the innocent coyness in asking “Why so secret”? I’m sure Donors Trust would feel they would be criticized by the man bouncing up and down like Iznogoud asking for their names.

In a more serious note, corporations are spineless and, importantly, do not have the intellectual capital or vision to think they can fight back for their right to support their causes. Companies give money when they are approached. They don’t want to deal with the headache that adverse media attention brings (when darlings like Brad Johnson write sweet protest letters). Not always the case though. Remember the Whole Foods CEO (US audiences will know). The ability to bend which ever way the wind blows is considered a virtue in business, and in many ways, it is. Unfortunately, it is such an attitude gives power to the stink bombers like Brad Johnson.

Ultimately however, let us be honest. The Alinksy solution is declaring the domain of climate change too toxic for anyone to enter and establish a voice, i.e., street-thuggery. Good for the GWPF they’re able to do it.

Yet another lie. Everything I listed above is a matter of fact and all are concrete examples of vested interest injecting misinformation into the public discourse and by extension eventually into the democratic process itself.

Australian academic Alex Carrey summed up what BBD says in a single quote:

“The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy”

The propaganda has to be paid for and it is, to the tune of many millions of dollars channeled through the corporate media, advertising, PR firms, think tanks and front groups. There have been countless books written about it, evidence procured time and time again, and against this background we have the meatballs and shrubs and gormlesses of this world claiming it ain’t so. I will agree on one thing, though: its not a conspiracy. Its out in the open. At least for anyone who bothers to look. Its too bad the deniers on here have their heads stuck well up their respective a**** to follow the money trail.

Speaking of conspiracies, meatball has admitted to one anyway. He cannot fathom why every major scientific organization on Earth has released statements accepting AGW as a fact and saying urgent measures are needed to deal with it. It must be a conspiracy because meatball has come on here claiming that 97% of scientists are of scientific evidence actually supports him and a few other idiots on blogs. If that’s the case, then how does one reconcile 97% of meatball’s ‘reality’ against 100% of the statements released by major scientific organizations?

I’ve so utterly hammered meatball on this point time and time again and his only rejoinders aren’t rejoinders at all but witless quips.

Speaking as a scientist (and stick that in your collective craws, shrub, gormless and meatball) the fact is that a huge majority of qualified scientists agree that humans are the main drivers behind CC and certainly almost 100% of published scientific articles support this as well.

Science spoke some time ago. Its a measure of the influence of BIG money that policy is still in neutral on the issue.

How about answering my previous question? How about some interaction that doesn’t just involve you delightedly rolling around in dishonesty like a dog in fox shit?

Everything I listed above is a matter of fact and all are concrete examples of vested interest injecting misinformation into the public discourse and by extension eventually into the democratic process itself.

Anyone who denies the existence of a massively well funded climate change denial movement is, frankly speaking, out of their minds. And the budgets of the environmental organizations that right wing loving gormless cited are a fraction of that of the combined efforts of PR industries, front groups, think tanks and others working on behalf of the industries that fund them. Furthermore, environmental groups depend on public support in terms of membership fees. There’s no comparison whatsover with the CC denial corporate-funded juggernaut.

Honestly, this is an issue beyond debate. The fossil fuel lobby sees any measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as a threat to the way they do business and to their profits. Thus, they invest heavily in PR aimed at misleading the public and in buying favor in the corridors of power. This isn’t any more controversial than AGW. That its projected that way by anyone shows how successful the oil, gas and coal industries have been in promulgating disinformation.

How about some interaction that doesn’t just involve you delightedly rolling around in dishonesty like a dog in fox shit?

Everything I listed above is a matter of fact and all are concrete examples of vested interest injecting misinformation into the public discourse and by extension eventually into the democratic process itself.

Conservative groups may have spent up to $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change, according to the first extensive study into the anatomy of the anti-climate effort.

The anti-climate effort has been largely underwritten by conservative billionaires, often working through secretive funding networks. They have displaced corporations as the prime supporters of 91 think tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations which have worked to block action on climate change. Such financial support has hardened conservative opposition to climate policy, ultimately dooming any chances of action from Congress to cut greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet, the study found.

“I call it the climate-change counter movement,” said the author of the study, Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle. “It is not just a couple of rogue individuals doing this. This is a large-scale political effort.”

[…]

Some of the think tanks on Brulle’s list – such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) – said they had no institutional position on climate change and did not control the output of their scholars. In addition, Brulle acknowledged that he was unable to uncover the full extent of funding sources to the effort to oppose action on climate change. About three-quarters of the funds were routed through trusts or other mechanisms that assure anonymity to donors – a trend Brulle described as disturbing and a threat to democracy.

“This is how wealthy individuals or corporations translate their economic power into political and cultural power,” he said. “They have their profits and they hire people to write books that say climate change is not real. They hire people to go on TV and say climate change is not real. It ends up that people without economic power don’t have the same size voice as the people who have economic power, and so it ends up distorting democracy.

“That is the bottom line here. These are unaccountable organisations deciding what our politics should be. They put their thumbs on the scale … It is more one dollar one vote than one person one vote.”

I hope you’re sitting down BBD, this is going to come as a bit of shock- There are “left wing think tanks” as well! and not only that, not everybody agrees with them, and they get money from people that not everybody like. For example,

“The Center for American Progress is classified as a 501(c)(3) organization under U.S. Internal Revenue Code. The institute receives approximately $25 million per year in funding from a variety of sources, including individuals, foundations, and corporations, but it declines to release any information on the sources of its funding. No funders are listed on its website or in its Annual Report. From 2003 to 2007, the Center received about $15 million in grants from 58 foundations. Major individual donors include George Soros, Peter Lewis, Steve Bing, and Herb and Marion Sandler. The Center receives undisclosed sums from corporate donors.[32] In December 2013 the organization released a list of its corporate donors.[33]”

From the list of corporate donors – Covanta Energy – who? They’re a renewables company – oh, oh, I think we know were this is going. George Soros, renewable energy companies – don’t they have vested interests here?

Must be a conspiracy, let the slime mold signaling continue BBD, you can use it a substitute for higher order brain activity!

#75 GSW now come up with another 39 of those to get to the billion.
Meantime, happy with fossil energy consumption as quick & total as possible for highest price and accompanied by the max of pollution and destroyed countrysides, no?

Lies again, GSW. Just because *you* are a climate change denier doesn’t mean that what CAP does is misinformation. That’s just how it seems to you because you are insane.

So, back to the question you are strenuously dodging.

How about some interaction that doesn’t just involve you delightedly rolling around in dishonesty like a dog in fox shit?

Everything I listed above is a matter of fact and all are concrete examples of vested interest injecting misinformation into the public discourse and by extension eventually into the democratic process itself.

The thing is that if you’re an amoral stunted fuck like Griselda, ‘output’ is just ‘output’. Means and ends don’t matter to winners, as long as they win.

Thus Soros backing renewable energy for example isn’t developing an alternative which will be required anyway as Peak Oil bites, nor is he helping develop solutions that cease or reduce CO2 emissions, nor is he promoting good guardianship of Earth, our only home. No sir.

What he’s actually doing is termiting away at the bottom line of the FF companies and their bought and paid for power structure, both formal – from Inhofe and his domestic and Atlantic Bridge/Trans-Pacific Partnership cohorts on down infecting the democratic process (by the people, for the people) – and the informal ones – the feral morons bred and fed by Ebell, Watts, Lawson, Montford, Nova etc..etc. etc.

Which is why the smugly and ugly insane like GSW and Olap can’t understand why, out in the informed world, their half-baked ideas and counter-attacks strangely lack the equivalence that seems all too plain to them.

“I have pointed out several times now that the examples I proveded were matters of fact and you cannot therefore claim that I am indulging in conspiracist ideation.”

You obviously are BBD. Think tanks get money from people, even ones you don’t like, so what? Why use that as an argument for anything? Sorry forgot, slime mold ideation as a substitute for thinking works for you.

Sure there are. But they represent a tiny fraction of those on the far end of the political right. This argument is like saying that there are qualified AGW denying scientists too, when their numbers are dwarfed by the number on the other side of the debate. In other words, a smokescreen.

My gosh, gormless, you stink as a debater. You might even be worse than your sidekick, the Swedish meatball. What’s ridiculous is that you actually think you are clever and have good arguments. Un-be-lieve-able.

BBD, and on top of those think tanks throw in the multi-billion dollar public relations industries and you might get some idea…

for instance, Edelman PR, Hill-Knowlton, Burson-Marstellar, Ketcham, Porter-Novelli, and hundreds of others just for starters. Then go to the front groups, astroturf organizations, etc., and it gets bigger and bigger still…

The only shock here is that you are even more simple and selective than previously thought.

Now I note that others\have answered you whilst I was sourcing info to counter your propaganda where you come up with just one, so called, liberal think tank. It is about social justice, nothing less, nothing more.

Corporate trade groups and other non-profit groups also make donations to ALEC of undisclosed sums. Examples include the NRA, the American Bail Association, and the American Petroleum Institute. There are also others listed here.

Additionally, ALEC has received millions from right-wing foundations created by corporate CEOs or their heirs over the years and which advance a corporate agenda through donations. Here are some of the foundations that are or have been donors to ALEC:

The Charles G. Koch Foundation and Claude R. Lambe Foundation– both are Koch Family Foundations that Charles Koch is centrally involved in. Charles Koch is the CEO of Koch Industries, the “largest privately owned energy company in the nation.”[11] Other groups it has funded include the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, the Institute for Humane Studies, the Heartland Institute and the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. The Koch Associate program of the Charles G. Koch Foundation also provides ALEC and other groups with “Koch Interns” and “Koch Fellows.” Some Koch Fellows go on to become ALEC staffers, such as Jonathan Williams, Director of ALEC’s Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force. Research from CMD and Greenpeace documents that the Koch foundations have given ALEC at least $600,000 in the past decade or so, and Koch Industries has donated an untold amount.

Allegheny Foundation – This is one of the Scaife Foundations, which have been heavily involved in financing right-wing causes supported by billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, whose wealth was inherited from the Mellon industrial, oil, uranium and banking fortune. Other groups it has funded include the Heritage Foundation and the Free Congress Foundation.[12]

Castle Rock Foundation — Founded in 1993 with a $36.6 million endowment from the Adolph Coors Foundation (which was in turn founded in 1975 with funds from Adolph Coors, Jr., the son of the founder of the Coors Brewing Company).[13] Other groups it has funded include the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, among others.[14]

JM Foundation — Founded in 1924 by Jeremiah Milbank. [15] Other groups it has funded include the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, the Cato Institute, FreedomWorks and the Heritage Foundation.

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation — Founded in 1942 as the Allen-Bradley Foundation, its “overall objective… is to return the U.S.– and the world– to the days before governments began to regulate Big Business, before corporations were forced to make concessions to an organized labor force.”[16] Other groups it has funded include the American Conservative Union Foundation, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Focus on the Family and Freedom Works.[17]

John M. Olin Foundation — Founded in 1953 by John Merrill Olin, a chemical and munitions inventor and industrialist, the foundation closed down in 2005. It has funded ALEC and other right-wing groups such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute for Public Policy Research and the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace.[18]

Also watch the vid’ pointed at by Jeff @ #72 where 91 organisations are indicated with many of them being bankrolled by the very rich at the expense of taxpayers from having charitable status. George Orwell was prescient.

You obviously are BBD. Think tanks get money from people, even ones you don’t like, so what? Why use that as an argument for anything?

It is a matter of fact (you agree) that think tanks get funded. So how is my pointing out that they are funded by conservative billionaires and corporations to produce misinformation about climate change conspiracist ideation? How?

It is not.

It is simply a matter of fact.

The exact same definitional process applies to the misrepresentation of climate science by the right wing media. Once again, there is no conspiracist ideation; this is simply a matter of fact.

I keep on coming across this: deniers and conspiracy theorists who have no idea what ‘conspiracist ideation’ actually means despite being enmired in it themselves.

I don’t suppose I should be surprised, really. It’s just par for the course.

“were matters of fact and you cannot therefore claim that I am indulging in conspiracist ideation”

I’ve tried to explain it in terms that even a simpleton would understand, but for obvious reasons that isn’t going to work here – people you don’t like give money to think tanks/advocacy groups, therefore democracy is being “subverted” (and you ideate reasons why based on a set of values that not everyone shares). When people you do like give money to think tanks/advocacy groups it’s a moral crusade like the one below.

“Head of the George Soros-funded Pacific Institute admitted to releasing documents from the Heartland Institute that he falsely obtained. The group’s sleazy attack was then promoted by liberal bloggers and quickly gained steam. The story was picked up by the New York Times, Politico and other media outlets.

Pacific Institute, the group that lied in order to obtain the documents, received $275,000 from Soros’s Open Society Foundations since 2006. This vicious attack by the left resulted in the release of information on the Heartland Institute’s fundraising strategy, budget, and plans to combat global warming alarmism.”

Slime mold signaling, or just slime? You just have to mention exxon, heartland, gwpf. etc and you lot fall into place as one big conspiracy ideation slug.

You are now simply ignoring my main point: your incessant accusations that I am engaging in conspiracist ideation are false because I am dealing only in matters of fact. Well documented, undisputed, fully established matters of fact.

I posit no hypothetical conspiracy. I merely point out that there is a large, well-funded denial industry that tries very hard to keep its inner workings secret.